New grammars by 2020 which will exclude 90% of local kids

[noblegiraffe]

What an excellent use of scarce public funding, to build schools that most kids can't access instead of using it to build good comprehensives to improve the life-chances of everyone.

Word from the government (who appear to be ploughing ahead with the proposals before they've even published the consultation results) is that new grammars will only take the top 10% rather than the top 25% of kids. God knows where they've got the evidence that the top 10% of kids require a different school but they're certainly not sharing it with us.

It is also beyond me how making grammar schools even more elite will help with the promised social mobility agenda, when previous discussions were about how the pass grade would be needed to be lowered to increase the number of disadvantaged kids gaining access.

And if you were in favour of a grammar school opening in your area because you thought your kid would get in, how sure are you now? How much less tempting is a grammar school opening up if your kid is more likely to be sent to the other school?

In addition, expect to see furious threads in the near future from parents whose local school of choice has converted to a grammar and their kid is now being bussed to another school in the MAT that they wouldn't have chosen for them.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38906594

The difference, ifailed, between selection at 10 and selection at 18 is that at 18 you have a theoretical choice of any institution in the country.

Baffled by all the people on this thread who know their kids will be in the top 10%. Mine appear to be quite bright but I've no idea how they might stack up against half the county. Presumably the catchment area for these school will be pretty huge.

Do you genuinely believe that all 31% can actually be taught the same material

Seems to work for GCSE and A level. I would be interested to see any evidence that shows the syllabus of a Maths degree from, say, Oxford, is so widely different from one from, say, Kent; that undergraduates from the latter couldn't cope with the former - given the degree award goes from 1st class honours to ordinary.

This article from the THE would seem to argue that know one really knows if a degree from one university is comparable to one from another.
www.timeshighereducation.com/features/are-uk-degree-standards-comparable/2016838.article, so maybe it was time this was investigated, especially as HE is now a service that students pay so much for?

"Baffled by all the people on this thread who know their kids will be in the top 10%."

As others have said, it would be very interesting to see how a "Bring back Secondary Moderns" campaign would go...........

that undergraduates from the latter couldn't cope with the former

If the latter university simply requires a B in maths at A-level to get on the course and Oxford requires an A, Further Maths and an interview or STEP, then of course the B grade student couldn't cope with the A + Further maths course as it would start with a much higher level of content because a certain level of ability could be assumed.

It's like wondering whether a C grade GCSE maths student could cope with Further Maths A-level.

But it doesn't work at A level maths - top universities set their own entrance papers (MAT, STEP) as lots of students get high marks in A level maths but are unable to cope with high level maths courses.

Again, do you want to give most of the Kent students low class degrees so they are ranked on the same scale as the Oxford ones? How is this helpful to anyone?

flyingwithwings Wed 15-Feb-17 11:13:16 I think St Joseph's cohort is representative of the level of high ability students in the area .

Really? so you think that 2 3rds of children in the area are high ability? Is this reflected in the yr6 primary SATs results?

5% FSM does not suggest deprived, low aspirational families unless the vast majority of families selecting this school are just above the line?

www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/school/136460?tab=secondary

If a Grammar opened in the area, would there be a suffient number of high ability DCs to populate both schools or would St Josephs just loose out to the Grammar?

You should also note that some Grammar schools will run with emply places rather than drop the entry requirements:

tggsacademy.org/tggsadmissions

do you want to give most of the Kent students low class degrees so they are ranked on the same scale as the Oxford ones? How is this helpful to anyone?

Again, seems to work for GCSE and A levels.

I do wonder if people are falling for the marketing from the likes of Oxford, that their exams are just so much harder than anywhere else - would be interested to see some empirical evidence for this?

academy.org/tggsadmissions

What a brilliant enticement to up sticks and move to the area !

Really? so you think that 2 3rds of children in the area are high ability? Is this reflected in the yr6 primary SATs results?

No i believe St Josephs is representative of the top 30% of the towns Cohort. As i have stated the highly regarded 'Academic' private school , attains worse A level results than your average grammar !

In Stoke and surrounding areas Newcastle Under Lyme school has the total pick of all non 'Catholic' children yet only attains B grade average at A level.

I believe grammar schools should be representative of the level of the town area or county. clearly a Grammar in Hartlepool is not going to have
the same '138' required score for entry as Tonbridge Grammar or Tiffin.

Hang on- you think a grammar should represent its surrounding cohort?

That's a comprehensive school. The whole point of a grammar is that it doesn't represent its surrounding cohort......................

You know full well i mean represent the top 25-30% of the town or area

While the problem of underachievement amongst high ability students in the state sector remains unaddressed, selection will continue to be popular.

Mumsnet may deny this problem exists but each successive government diasagrees. As does virtually everyone in HE.

The only people in HE who moan about high ability students as far as I'm aware are the ones who can't be arsed to sort out their entry criteria and expect schools to do all the work for them.

That's sanctimonious BS noble and you know it!

No, I don't know it. Please provide some evidence and I'll change my mind?

Undoubtedly selection will always be popular with parents who feel their children would achieve better in that system - but that doesn't mean in any way that May's claims that it helps disadvantaged children rise to the top are borne out, which is supposed to be the point.

And how it's supposed to help those left behind, I really don't know.

I'm glad now that mine are too old for all this - all we have to worry about is the stupid new level 9 malarkey in English and Maths GCSEs...

flyingwithwings Wed 15-Feb-17 13:53:55 I believe grammar schools should be representative of the level of the town area or county.

There is already a Grammar School in Stoke, St Josephs. Why will adding another Grammar make a massive difference?

I do wonder if people are falling for the marketing from the likes of Oxford, that their exams are just so much harder than anywhere else - would be interested to see some empirical evidence for this?

Empirical evidence: students come to Oxford and Cambridge from other universities, with Firsts, to do fourth year Masters courses in my subject. Their marks at Oxbridge are far below their undergraduate marks, reflecting the different standards of the papers and marking.

Ifailed
You have a very strange view of GCSEs if you think that all children study the same materials and take the same exams.

Your understanding of A levels is even weaker if you think that all children actually take them, let alone that they take the same ones.

You are clearly just trolling the thread - but misleading in the process.

Noble - I do not work in HE but I do read here some of the efforts some people make in outreach etc and also some linked articles written by tutors / lecturers involved in admissions. The impression I have , which is very sobering is that some applicants are not offered a place because the preparation / ground work / choices they have had is simply not enough for them to keep up with the course ( notwithstanding their native ability or potential. ) How can / should universities make up for this over a typical 3 year degree course? Some articles I have read are saddening but I do not quite understand how it would help simply to allow people on to the course if they could not cope (sorry if i have misrepresented you ) Surely the answer is, as people or institutions seem to be making the effort to do , to inform the schools who will be doing the preparation for these applications about what is required. It may be hard / sometimes ill received and too little but surely the right approach. Again, I do not work in this field so my apologies if I use the wrong terms or my understanding is naive.

And Ifailed , I do think you're being a bit naive (given my basic point above if you get it) to think you could run universities along comprehensive lines (caveat about me not working in HE to the fore) . They are separate institutions, and at 17 / 18 (ish) that is one of the difficult things DCs face with choosing. Entirely different (whatever your view) to going through the compulsory years of education.

Sorry Noble , that thought was sparked by you but not meant as pointedly to you as it looks. Sorry.

Ta1kinPeace

Trolling? Nowhere have I stated the things you attribute to me. Maybe the boot is on the other foot.

The only people in HE who moan about high ability students as far as I'm aware are the ones who can't be arsed to sort out their entry criteria and expect schools to do all the work for them.

I am very happy to introduce you to very many people working in HE who passionately believe in comprehensive education, choose it for their own children and want it to work YET acknowledge that there is a huge problem of underachievement by (some) high ability students in (some) state schools.

This has nothing to do with entry criteria - which as I repeatedly write on MN are not set that high for science subjects such as mine, as they are relatively under-subscribed.

It has everything to do with the fact that (some) high ability students are woefully under-prepared for university. Again, I would genuinely be happy to pass on your details to colleagues at RG maths departments who would talk to you about students coming in to study maths who have learnt calculus algorithms by rote to get good scores in A level but have little understanding of what differentiation/integration actually means etc etc. There are massive variations in the quality of maths teaching around the country which is having very bad effects on (some) state school students.

Getahaircurl is absolutely right that while this is happening there will be those who push for selective state education.

More children could attend these schools if the government hadn't created the scurge of academies that now blight our school system. At least you have choice.

1. You can't complain about students being inadequately prepared for your university course if you set grade requirements low in order to get enough bums on seats

2. Universities would be stupid to clamour for selective schools because
   A) sixth forms which feed into universities are already selective, as are A-levels.
   B) as the Green Paper points out, if there are new selective schools, universities will be expected to run them as a condition of charging higher tuition fees.

3. Inadequate maths teaching around the country is due to a deeply inadequate supply of trained maths teachers, a situation that is not being addressed because the DfE is wasting time fannying around with this grammar school proposal.